Readers' comments

The issue is not a lack of US influence in Egypt, but that such influence has not been used properly, whether with respect to Mubarak, Morsi or the new "civilian" government (aka the military). Instead of viewing Egypt through the vague prism of grandiose geopolitics, the United States should be treating Egypt for what it is -- a developing country with 85 million individuals situated on the shores of the Mediterranean and Red Seas. Egypt is not an army, not a religion and not a transient ideology. Use US leverage to open Egypt up to its potential - back the IMF loan, forge a free trade agreement and encourage more non-political exchanges. The rest will take care of itself. http://balasticman.blogspot.it/2013/07/now-what-to-do-with-egypt.html

There is an insanity in America that if you only give enough guns to everyone, that there will be peace in the world and no crime or tyranny in the homeland.

President Obama is the most competent Commander in Chief I've known; a President whose courage to remain silent before his accusers while contemplating the advice of his commanders, balancing the military cost against political reality, and always putting country before politics. He is respected by those he respects for the bravery, duty and honor in serving this nation faithfully.

I fought in Vietnam, 5th Special Forces, Detachment B-36, 3rd Mobile Strike Force, and trust President Obama to navigate and avoid the Middle East religious war quagmire given our national interests and to resist the pressure from the trigger-happy conservatives who want to engage militarily in every conflict.

dslaby,
.
You are the proof that some, at home and abroad, applaud Mr Obama’s caution as Egypt fumbles its way towards greater democracy. The world appreciates that you fought in Vietnam, 5th Special Forces, Detachment B-36, 3rd Mobile Strike Force. Unfortunately, that distinction does not entitle you to speak for those whose experiences are more recent or geographically relevant.
.
What on earth do "trigger-happy (2nd amendment) conservatives" have to do with Obama's obvious foreign policy blunders? At this point I feel sorry for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, also a Viet Nam vet. I don't know how he'll ever repair the damage done by the most competent Commander in Chief you've ever known.

I would disagree regarding the relevance: Vietnam was mostly about reassuring Europe that America would keep its defense commitment in case of Soviet invasion. The recent experiences in South Asia and Middle East also reflect the strategies such as counter-insurgency and strategic national interests defined in oil security. I'm interested in your identifying the "obvious" foreign policy blunders of President Obama.

Sometimes the U.S. is blamed for doing something or not doing something. In Egypt it is blamed no matter what.

We've spent 50 years trying to get people in this part of the world to not kill each other. Why? Oil. The dithering that enrages me is all those years of doing nothing about U.S. foreign oil dependence.

All that had to happen is for a tax to keep oil prices as high, adjusted for inflation, as they are now. High enough to encourage domestic production, conservation, and lifestyle changes and alternatives. The particular mix would be determined by circumstances and the market.

That is what is happening now. That is what started to happen twice before, but then a plunge in oil prices and the lure of cheap and easy brought a stop to it, leaving a part of the world that blames us for all their problems no matter what with a boot on our economic throat.

What I want Obama to do is institute a tax on oil and related products, produced or imported, that rises as the price falls, keeping the price where it is now plus inflation. That's the right response to all of this.

Mr Obama has done well to 'dither' over the Arab Spring. Democracy should come to the Middle East through the will and toil of its people, not from the guns of the American military. Only then will it be lasting

You think maybe between doing nothing and guns there might be a middle ground Just Passing Through? Like having a coherent policy for example. I love the black and white thinking. Maybe the world is in fact a shade of gray. You think?

Hmm. I did phrase that rather badly it. Of course I do think there is a middle ground between that but what can America do anyway? One of the top posts said it better that aiding one side only leads to the other hating America. What would you consider a coherent policy for this mess?

What would you call this policy? "U.S. plan for what we think another country should do during a period of uncertain transition, where it's not clear who we should side with, and what exactly the benefits of having this coherent policy are."
The world is not just a shade of gray, it is infinite shades of gray with countless blends of white and black. Maybe we are all dreamers.

Egypt's military coup was planned. Months before the coup, Egypt's military generals and opposition leaders were meeting at the Navy Club to conspire the coup. The plan was that if opposition leaders create enough protests, the generals will bring down the Morsi presidency. The frequent power-blackouts and petrol shortages were part of the coup to make people angry at Morsi and protest. Power-blackouts and petrol shortage disappeared immediately after the coup. This is a clear sign of coup conspiracy.
Some argue that the coup was planned by America and ordered to the Egyptian military. After all, Egyptian military is controlled by America. After all, the coup was Americanplot!

The more there is no proof of a conspiracy, the more it must be a conspiracy, right. I am glad we have such great analysis from someone who so clearly is in the know on all the events here. Thanks for sharing your great knowledge.

The US is a democracy, with a large well organised Jewish lobby, who denounce anything the US does that is against the policies of Isreal. There is no comparable lobby for the arabs or muslims. So it's not so strange and unfathomable.

Despite this the US does provide significant aid to the muslim world, of which Egypt is a major recipient. In neither case does this aid seem to 'buy' that country. Isreal still bulldozes and builds its own communities on the proposed basis for a state of Palestine and most muslims still blame the US for all their problems. Hey ho.

Call me a dreamer, and consider this post fairly useless, but I will continue nonetheless. Could we ban military aid between countries? What good does it accomplish for a nation to help arm another nation? How many schools, roads, sewers, or bridges could be built with the billions that are sent as military aid to poverty plagued countries. Well, we could lose jobs at U.S. defense contracting companies, but maybe we could pay people to build desks, bulldozers, effluent pumps, or rivets. The world would be a better place. If a country needs military aid, let them apply to the UN or some other worthy non-nation institution, and pay for peacekeepers or a little hardware as determined necessary for their particular need.
Maybe I'm ranting, and I'm not sure if I am adding positive intelligent commentary or not-so I'll stop now.

Egyptian government and civilians' attitudes toward the U.S. do not really matter, they can howl anti-America slogans all day and night, as long as America can buy influence over the Egyptian military. The sad thing is, as I said before, only $1.5 billion is enough to buy sufficient influence over the Egyptian military. With the Egyptian military under control, the U.S. can change the civilian leadership at will through the military, and install whoever that will satisfy America's demands, just like what they did to the Morsi government - democracy be damned. Do not be fooled by the anti-America slogans from either the Egyptian military or government, they are meant for domestic audience only to garner their support. Behind the scene, the Egyptian military had their balls firmly in the hands of America.

Actually, I think the Egyptian military cares less about what the U.S. government thinks and more about protecting its interests in the Egyptian economy and political sphere. Al-Sisi and company most likely want to play the neutral kingmaker to ensure no one will disrupt the comfortable economic base Egyptian military officers have created for themselves.

Explain why our tax dollars are going to arm an unstable country with a violent christophobic and anti-semitic majority? What possible good can come from this insane policy? Will it make them "Like us"?

Well, Egypt is arguably the most powerful, and most populated, country in the Middle East, and the first to sign a peace treaty and recognize Israel's right to exist. Without Egyptian military help, it's virtually impossible for the other countries there to successfully invade Israel or otherwise threaten it's existence without using nuclear weapons, which none of them currently have. Egypt was stable under a dictatorship friendly to the US for decades, it's only recently become unstable.

In reality, we help Egypt to help Israel. This's why Obama and crew were hesitant to welcome a democratic revolution there, because the islamists who will invariably win those elections might drop Egypt's support for the treaty.

Geopolitics and billions in aid aren't given to people for them to "like us" - it has very real and tangible uses, and countries don't always have the luxury of only being buddies with others that completely agree on every issue.

Invade Israel? With help from the Egyptians? Now that is a very funny joke. The US will fight it's foreign wars on Israeli soil before it fights them in US soil. The Israelis may be cunning and scheming, but the Anglo is too much for them.

Among the largest regular transfers of cash in World Diplomacy is America's annual $1.5 Billion tribute paid to Egypt.
***Remember the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Western Europe after WWII was $1 Billion in TOTAL.

IT is nominally paid as ransom to maintain the fragile Israeli-Arab Peace:
an extortion fee for Arabs to not attack.

It has become an Egyptian entitlement that they expect with NO strings attached.
Today the Egyptian Army accounts for 30% of Egyptian GDP.
The American Aid has a lot to do with it.

Caesar himself could not get such generous tributes.
Egypt is the New Rome.

"Caesar himself could not get such generous tributes.
Egypt is the New Rome."

You've written some non-sense before, but this tops it. Comparing the rebuilding of Western Europe to military aid to Egypt is just absurd. The Marshall Plan was to REBUILD, not to develop. Very different concepts. Western Europe already had all of their institutions in place, we just literally had to rebuild the buildings destroyed. Aid to Egypt and other nations is meant to either stabilize or develop institutions that are either very corrupt and need an overhaul or to develop them where they are lacking.

There are plenty of strings attached to the deal. These are not grants we give them, it is aid in which they have to use by buying US military equipment or training. Most of that money comes right back to us. Therefore, it is more of a subsidiary to our own military industry than anything else.

Please be more careful when posting. There is already so much non-sense in the world, and we really don't need any more of it.

When a country is in the middle of a revolution/civil war, the last thing any foreign power should do it is to influence the outcome. Because when the people are 50/50 split down the middle, you will end up with half of the populating hating you no matter which side you support. It happened in Russia to those who backed the Whites, happened in Iran to all who backed the Shah and it is happening now to the fools who backed the Brotherhood.

It really blows my mind that a post can shift from talking about how people blame the US to US influence. The problem for me is that talking about the US and what it can or can't do is a distraction from the reality that Egypt is a large country with nearly 100 million people and that Egyptians make their decisions about their country.

In other words, show me a country where another country can come in and say, "Gee, you really need to do this" with an implicit or else in there. I can't think of a country. We used to have examples when the Soviets controlled what was said and done in E. Europe but no one tells Denmark what to do or Guyana or Ecuador or Laos ... so why exactly would Egypt be so susceptible to outside influence when it is a huge place with a vast population?

I think a much more rational and intelligent approach would be to look at the statements and note they are attempts to blame outsiders. This happens in the US and in every country: it's someone else's fault and look, the other side is aligned with x. Fill that x in with what you want. Say for example that you tar Democrats by saying they want illegals to flood the country and vote. Same kind of blame game in which you identify an outsider and say the other side is tied to them. At least in Egypt there is a connection between the military and the US.

It gets to be nonsensical. I recently watched a sermon from Damascus in which their civil war was the fault of Jews.

That's the beauty of it. You don't actually need to find a connection. You can simply proclaim the Jews responsible for your pancakes, and it will be so. Jews also made me wake up late this morning, forcing me to skip breakfast. Be lucky you even had burnt pancakes. The Jews didn't afford me that luxury.

This post shifts from the realities on the ground in today's Cairo to the distant memory of a speech given there in 2009 (i.e. the American president simply lacks the leverage to influence events in Egypt).

1. America does not wield as much clout in Egypt (or in other parts of the world) as it did in the past because it is cash-strapped. America’s billion-ish military aid to Egypt, although on an annual basis, will appear small in Cairo compared to a one-time 12-billion windfall that’s expected from the Gulf monarchies this year. One might say that the hallmark of an aging, traditional power-broker is the inability to pony up large sums of money in a short period of time because of all other commitments that it has, while the rising powers have the exact opposite attribute. This was the same with America as a young superpower 70 years ago.

2. Having said that, America’s influence also obviously suffers from its unpopularity, whether deserved or not. Respect is the ultimate currency.

3. The rush, by Egypt’s military government and its Islamist opposition, to claim America as their enemy presents a perverse opportunity for Washington. A vocal, yet non-tangible American support for either one of these factions can instantly demolish their nationalist credentials and make them lose power. Has this possibility been considered in America’s foreign policy circles? Stir some s**t up, poison enemies with your friendship.

Re: point 3
You can be certain that people in power are aware of that option. The conundrum is, though, whether the poisoning of one side is worth the inevitable helping of the other side? I am guessing that people with empirical knowledge about the Egyptian factions at play - and what kinds of people those factions are made up of, and whom they represent and can mobilize on short order - are less keen on poisoning one side if that means giving unearned/undeserved aid to the other by default. Pox on both their house, really. They, the Egyptians, just might get a fleeting glimpse at how democracy really functions in the real world; and then revert back to their old selves...

Egypt remains The Anchor to which Israel is tethered in the Middle East. The Peace with Israel is one of the bed rocks of US Middle Eastern Policy. The President's Political Calculus is therefore all around the Regime's Guarantee of that Peace. Evidently The President has been disavowed of the Notion not that Morsi would not guarantee the Peace, but that he simply could not reach beyond his Base. The Value of the MB Guarantee was essentially eroding at speed.

Outside Egypt, The President has been remarkably hard-nosed. The Toppling of Gaddafi via R2P, Bashar's Advances might only be phyrric because the Economy has been pounded. Iran must be a Pressure-Cooker. In the Context of the Geopolitical Aim of softening up Iran and its Allies, President Obama has been landing some punches.

The President is a mercurial Man who could seriously ignite the Arab World but then he would have to bet on the People.

American aid to Egypt is (or at least was initially) tied to equal amounts of aid to Israel. Does anyone know what the impact of suspending that aid to Egypt would have on the authroization of that aid to Israel?
.
Also, since American aid to Egypt is so comparitively minor, as the article notes, and since Israel hardly needs American aid, why are we spending this money any more anyway?

First, they are separate. They are related in amount. There is a law about what happens when a coup occurs.

Second, to be clear, the reasons for military aid to Egypt - separate from other aid - are complex and don't all relate to Israel. Egypt is not only a US ally but has a military production industry. The US essentially competes for a role in that business, with competition coming from France and Britain. The absolute size of the business may be considered for policy purposes less important than the fact it exists. The Egyptians have also bluntly said they expect the money as payment for keeping peace in the region. How much that is true today is unknown. (I say that given the close connections between Israel and Egypt on military matters even under the Muslim Brotherhood - and despite mutual hatreds. They recently agreed, for example, that Egypt would increase troop numbers in Sinai and Egypt has been waging a rather harsh compaign on Gaza tunnels, if only because of attacks from Gaza on Egyptian soldiers.)

Third, it should be noted that Israel doesn't receive economic aid anymore. Egypt does. The amount has dropped and varies. It's been nearly $1B a year and has been as low as $250M a year.

Fourth, any discussion of military aid needs to be put in the context of how it works. Almost all aid is actually "given" through the Foreign Military Financing program, which is paying US defense contractors to make stuff that is then handed to other countries. In other words, it's nearly all a subsidy to US companies. In absolute terms, it doesn't amount to much compared to other subsidies for corporations. The argument for FMF is that it keeps the US defense industry strong and reduces cost for the US military by increasing overall production. There is some truth in this but it's complicated. As a note, Israel gets perhaps the only actual military grant money as part of its military aid. The idea behind that is the US benefits from Israeli technology, that the money is essentially an investment. There is some truth to that but it's also complicated.

I must inquire about your 4th point... is what you say true? This disturbs me on many levels. Why would a responsible journalist lump the amount of military "aid" in to a cash figure and say this is "given" to Egypt when it is so much more complex than that, it leads the reader (or at least me) to believe that the US is making a deposit into the bank account of their Army.
This causes me to have so much more anger towards our beloved "job-creating" defense contractors. Oh how we detest those spendmore socialists that want to give money and food stamps to poor Americans, yet to suggest that we stop giving money to U.S. companies to make weapons to give to our "friends" in the middle east-I could imagine the outrage. Couldn't we just revive the CCC?
Why would we pay to arm any other country, let alone the ones in the Middles East? We are the shining light best example of free-market, rule-of-law, capitalism, but we do not actually believe in these things or trust them to work. Our agriculture is central-planned Soviet style, government mandates and protections create artificial markets and too-big-to-fail.
The world would benefit from our rigorous pursuit of open markets, free trade, and general economic liberalization, and we do advocate these things a little. But unfortunately, we know what really makes the world go round is aggression, domination by force, military might, and of course outspending your ideological enemies on materiel.

U.S. military aid to Egypt, while comparatively minor in purely quantitative terms, is still superior to lump sum cash transfers or guaranteed loans from Middle Eastern countries because the funding also comes with access to U.S. defense technology and training (though that access is not unlimited). No amount of cash from the Middle East can give you access to some of the best avionics in the world unless you have a defense relationship with the United States, which Foreign Military Financing implies. This keeps the Egyptian military's equipment partly dependant on the U.S. for supplies, maintenance, and training. To fly F-16s, for instance, Egyptian pilots would go to the U.S. for training and therefore be exposed to U.S. military doctrine, the culture of logistics, etc. That doesn't stop the senior-most Egyptian Armed Forces officers from pursuing what's in their own interests, but it keeps open a line of dialogue that the U.S. lacks when it comes to countries with which we don't have a robust defense relationship. In a way, it also helps the U.S. keep an eye on Egyptian military capabilities, perhaps so they aren't too geared towards conflict with Israel and more towards policing the Sinai or taking out terrorist cells and smuggling routes.

As for Israel, I don't think it's quite accurate to say they don't need our assistance. As a small country, Israel's defense industry relies on two sources to fund expensive R&D to maintain its qualitative military edge: 1) exports and 2) multi-year military aid commitments from the U.S., including joint development of missile defense technology like Iron Dome, David's Sling (what an awesome name!), and Arrow. If the Israeli defense industry could only rely on the national defense budget and export revenue, then it wouldn't be able to invest in high-tech military equipment for which the country is deservedly renowned.

I agree with you on points 1 and 2 and mostly on 3 (Israel does receive some non-military aid such as resettlement assistance and guaranteed loans, though I don't know when Israel last drew down on the loans).

On the fourth point, I think it's a bit simplistic to say it's merely a subsidy for U.S. defense contractors. I agree that it does subsidize purchases for U.S. defense equipment and services, but with it comes access to U.S. technology, training, and maintenance. It's setting up a defense relationship between the U.S. and Egypt; while this doesn't mean control of Egyptian affairs, it does mean the U.S. has more of a direct line of communication with various levels of the Egyptian military than other countries. Sometimes it works in the Americans' favor, sometimes not.

Note also that Egypt receives Excess Defense Articles worth hundreds of millions of dollars, something which the defense industry probably doesn't like as much since the equipment transferred from old DoD stocks means less new procurements (though usually the old stuff needs contractor support for refurbishment, etc.). The U.S. also spends about a million or two each year just on military education.

That said, the Egyptian military will always protect its own economic interests before bowing to U.S. influence. They're more interested in making sure their comfortable way of life isn't upended. In this case, they probably saw siding with the Tamarod movement as the only way to defend their future livelihood.

"Why would a responsible journalist lump the amount of military "aid" in to a cash figure and say this is "given" to Egypt when it is so much more complex than that, it leads the reader (or at least me) to believe that the US is making a deposit into the bank account of their Army."

I'm not trying to insult you even though it may come off that way - reporters and journalists don't have time or the print space to type out history lessons and explain country-specific nuances in every article when they are justified and correct in simply saying it equates to direct military aid.

...military "aid" (which is paid to U.S. contractors to make military gear that is then given to Egypt).
That would be enough to clarify I think.
The way it is written, I could take the author's statement and in retelling the story say... "Did you know we give the Egyptian military 1.5 billion dollars?" My friend would then say... "Why are my tax dollars being given to some country in the middle east?" I believe it implies something totally different.
And then we come to learn that we actually pay U.S. companies to make missiles, guns, or whatever and then give these wonderful presents to our "allies" and we think... Oh, well that is good for American jobs, and it should bring peace to the region, and secure our influence and friendship with the countries in the region...

According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel hasn't drawn on any loans guaranteed by the US since 2005. They still have authorization outstanding but have said there are no plans to do anything with that.

As far as I can tell, the only non-military aid is $15M designated generally for "refugees", meaning originally from the USSR (!) but now taken to mean immigrants. I have no idea why that survives. It's not exactly a large number and can't be important. It isn't important as an amount to Israel either.

The US also funds a bunch of other things that give money all over the place, including to institutions in Israel (and all over the Middle East). I don't include those; these institutions apply for grants and, it seems, are treated like applicants from anywhere.

Here are 2 examples. First, the US will "sell" Israel advanced fighters. That means they'll pay for them and send them. The same will be done in whole or in part with other countries. This extends US power & influence and also extends on a practical basis the production runs for the advanced fighter. To be blunt, if you don't make a lot, the cost per unit is even higher. So the actual net cost is somewhat less than the face value - which is an untrustworthy figure anyway.

Second, the US has a joint missile development program which I believe gets about $100M. This ties into but is also separate from development of the anti-missile systems and ties into but is also separate from the Israeli military drone industry. It's hard to say how much of this stuff is cooperative and how much is aid and how much is spending to benefit yourself. That is why I say it's complicated.

But on the whole, I repeat the most important thing to remember is that military aid is credits in the US Treasury paid out to US companies. BTW, I think a main purpose in sending Egypt older stuff is that they have a niche in making and marketing older US stuff to other nations. We want that business to thrive.